High seas hypermiling: even giant ships are doing it (slowing way down to save fuel)

[user removed]

Since it takes so long for them to come to a stop, I wonder if pulse and glide might be more effective.

regards
Mech

[random_variable]

Originally Posted by Piwoslaw

A few years ago I wanted to transport a bike across a large distance. I was in no hurry, so even 3 months was OK. I was hoping for some lowspeed, eco transport, but the only options were fast air and express air. I asked three different companies.

I know Maersk isn't exactly the company to transport one bike, but if I had 30 containers of bikes, then it's good to know I have an eco option.

Greyhound will ship packages, it's slow and might be delayed a bunch, but's it eco.

[Piwoslaw]

Originally Posted by RobertSmalls

One place where slowing down makes lots of sense is oil tankers in slow economic times. We probably have more tankers than we need right now, and oil inventories are high, so slowing down should cost very little and save a lot.

But we here at EcoModder.com don't really want oil to be cheaper, do we?
I, personally, would like less fuel to be wasted on transporting oil, but I don't want oil to be cheaper, and I don't want Big Oil to make even more money. It's a paradox, I know. Maybe they would give the saved money to charity, or sponsor environmental protection groups? Yeah, right...

EDIT: I found this on Wikipedia:

Cunard state that their liner, the RMS Queen Elizabeth 2, travels 49.5 feet per imperial gallon of diesel oil (3.32 m/L or 41.2 ft/US gal), and that it has a passenger capacity of 1777. Thus carrying 1777 passengers we can calculate an effieiency of 16.7 passenger-miles per imperial gallon (16.9 L/100 p·km or 13.9 p·mpg–US). One cubic metre of fuel would push the ship forward by 1.8 nautical miles.

That is for a luxury liner, a freight ship would have different numbers, but how different?

[DonR]

I'm suprised no one has put a nuke in some of the ships. Of course apples to oranges.

As discussed on this site before, some ships have been retrofitted with a bulbous (sp?) bow device to reduce drag.

Don

[wagonman76]

Originally Posted by Peter7307

An interesting thread.
There must be a huge number of times when a shipment has to get to a place but the time factor is virtually immaterial...and the savings i shipping costs can more than make up for costs of having that inventory sitting on the boat for the extra time.

The ideal concept of JIT (Just In Time) inventory management has driven this to a large extent despite the number of times it actually fails miserably in the real world.

Hopefully we will see some common sense returning some time soon.

Pete.

The JIT inventory thing drives me nuts. Nobody wants to stock anything. If you're going to use something anyway and it's not perishable, keep a supply and top off when you can get a deal on it, and have it shipped slow and cheap. Save yourself some money. No, instead they wait till crunch time, then pay expediting fees, next day shipping, and it ends up costing more in shipping than for the actual item. And they do it every time.

[Piwoslaw]

Originally Posted by DonR

I'm suprised no one has put a nuke in some of the ships. Of course apples to oranges.

A nuke in a civilian ship? No chance.

[tim3058]

Originally Posted by Piwoslaw

But we here at EcoModder.com don't really want oil to be cheaper, do we?
I, personally, would like less fuel to be wasted on transporting oil, but I don't want oil to be cheaper, and I don't want Big Oil to make even more money. It's a paradox, I know. Maybe they would give the saved money to charity, or sponsor environmental protection groups? Yeah, right...

EDIT: I found this on Wikipedia:


That is for a luxury liner, a freight ship would have different numbers, but how different?

It's an interesting paradox, as you said Piwoslaw. I'd be all for gas being cheaper, I and my friends are all sick of paying through the nose for it, and it hampers driving cars that are more enjoyable than a Civic. On the flip side at the present cost of gas (or higher) my Civic earns the investment cost back faster

[Peter7307]

Originally Posted by DonR

I'm suprised no one has put a nuke in some of the ships. Of course apples to oranges.

As discussed on this site before, some ships have been retrofitted with a bulbous (sp?) bow device to reduce drag.

Don

Don, Yep it has been done and in a cargo ship as well.
Can't recall the name but it was in the heyday of nuclear power (well before 3 mile island , Chrenobyl etc.).

The bow bulb is claimed to help by around 7% depending on the design details.
Worth having I would have said.

Cheers , Pete.

[Peter7307]

Originally Posted by wagonman76

The JIT inventory thing drives me nuts. Nobody wants to stock anything. If you're going to use something anyway and it's not perishable, keep a supply and top off when you can get a deal on it, and have it shipped slow and cheap. Save yourself some money. No, instead they wait till crunch time, then pay expediting fees, next day shipping, and it ends up costing more in shipping than for the actual item. And they do it every time.

Totally agree 100 and 1%.
Drives me nuts as well.
Bad enough they get it wrong in the first place but to do it repeatedly is the really frustrating part.

Pete.

[99metro]

For dual shaft ships - more economical to drag one shaft and only run the other. They did it all the time to save fuel back in my Navy days.